This is an excellent point and was brought up somewhere in an article I read, I'll see if I can find it. You're right basically, they generally don't use the internet. Regarding Obama being more in touch, I'd rather not comment. I don't necessarily mean that negatively either, it's just that I'm not sure and I can't word my answer without sounding harsh towards Dear Leader.The Tom wrote:- It seems to me that Congress and the Senate are made up mostly of people who themselves admit that they do not use the internet, and that the President is perhaps more 'in touch' with the opposition to the bill and is more likely to listen.
I dunno dude. You have a link? My guess would be that in the court of law (and in any legislation) you have to use retard language. It's not about being right; it's about speaking the language. This is part of the reason why you should never represent yourself in a court case.The Tom wrote:- Why are the proponents saying that there has been no real opposition to the bill, that there is no basis in fact for any disagreement? What the hell do they think Wikipedia are doing with their planned 'knowledge blackout'?
Right now, under todays legislation, you may receive a "cease and desist" letter for that. This is under the umbrella of copyright protection which protects the individual.The Tom wrote:Surely it can't be the case that if a user posts a link to a copyrighted picture on, say, whitehouse.gov, then that website is under threat simply because it 'hosts' a link to illegal material? The White House's own site?
So if Mucro does a google image search for cars, and sees his pic, he can have his attorney send that (cease and desist) letter. The website owner can choose to ignore Mucro, in which he will go to court. From there the court decides the appropriate action. Ya know, innocent until proven guilty and all that.
This bill will grant the power to shut down a site prior to the court case.
Here's the problem with that: One, it's not right. Two, there is a huge backlog in court cases. Yours may be two years from the time you realize there's a problem. If your website is your job, now you're without work and must go find a job.
Also think about the fact that if your site brings in $36K a year, and that is seized for 2 years due to a court case, you're out $72K. Most folks have more than one site, and if they all get seized you're out hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Someone like myself, this is my trade. I'd have to be a broke bag boy or something if I had to get another job.
